DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 8/18/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventive feature that connects groups I and II is not taught by the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the method steps as claimed are held to be known, see rejection below over Florey or Nakamura and Das.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a coiling temperature from 70°C to 95°C, 95°C being excluded” which is interpreted to mean a coiling temperature from 70°C to <95°C. If this interpretation is not consistent with applicant’s intended interpretation, please clarify (including where said interpretation is found in the original specification) in response to this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the Mn maximum content of the ingot is 0.35%”, and the claim also recites “optionally 0.24%” as well as “optionally 0.25%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation (additionally, it is unclear if 0.24% and 0.25% refer to minimums or maximums).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “coiling above 95C” and the claim also recites “optionally from 95C to 105C”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “150C to 190C” and the claim also recites “170C to 190C”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “5 to 30 minutes” and the claim also recites “15 to 30 minutes”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims dependent on the above rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florey et al (US 2018/0171452), cited on IDS received 6/1/22.
Florey teaches a method of making a rolled product for automobile body parts or structural body parts [0012], said process comprising steps of:
Claim 1
cl. 6
Florey
Casting an ingot
Vertical semi-cont casting
(cl. 7)
Semi-contin. casting an ingot
[0063]
Homogen. 520-560°C
*2-8 hrs
Homogenize 520-575°C
30 min-18 hr
[0088-0089]
Hot roll to thickness 3-10 mm
Hot roll to thickness 4-15 mm
[0091]
Cold roll to sheet 1-4 mm
Cold rolling to form a “sheet” thickness <4mm
[0062], [0096]
Solution heat 540-580°C, quench
*1 s- 5 min
Solution heat 500-590C, time=5 sec-2 hrs
[0097], [0010]
Pre-age 50-120°C t≥8 hrs by coiling
Pre-aging 70<95°C (cl. 8)
Pre-aging about 100-160°C & coiling up to 30 hrs
[0102], Fig. 4
Pre-aging 50-70°C (cl. 9)
Pre-aging >95°C (cl. 10)
Natural aging
*ambient temp 72 hr-6 months
0-150 days
Fig. 9, Fig. 14
*=and/or
Table 1: comparison of instant claims with process of Florey
wherein the process steps taught by Florey meet the claimed process steps, and the parameters taught by Florey overlap the claimed parameters (i.e. time, temperature, and thickness limitations, see Table 1 above). Further, Florey teaches subjecting an Al-Mg-Si alloy to said process steps, wherein said Al-Mg-Si alloy of Florey overlaps the claimed alloying ranges. More particularly, Florey teaches said alloy comprises (in wt%): 0.6-1.1% Si, 0.7-1.2% Mg, 0.05-1.1% Cu, up to 0.35% Mn, up to 0.4% Fe, up to 0.10% Ti, up to 0.25% Cr, balance aluminum [0006], which overlaps the alloy of instant claim 1 (as well as dependent claims 2-5). Because Florey teaches subjecting an overlapping Al-Mg-Si alloy to identical steps of casting, homogenizing, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution heating, quenching, preaging, and naturally aging, together with overlapping processing parameters, it is held that Florey has created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claims 2-5, see above discussion of alloying ranges.
Concerning claim 6, as set forth above, Florey teaches overlapping steps and parameters (see Table 1 above), and therefore meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 7, which mentions vertical semi-continuous casting, Florey teaches casting by semi-continuous casting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cast the Al-Mg-Si alloy of Florey by a known semi-continuous casting method, such as vertical semi-continuous casting (as claimed), because Florey broadly teaches semi-continuous casting.
Concerning claim 8, Florey teaches pre-aging at about 100°C as a minimum, wherein “about 100°C” meets the instant <95°C limitation (see Claim Interpretation, above).
Concerning claim 15, Florey teaches the formed Al-Mg-Si sheet can be further processed by user forming (such as by stamping [0116]) and paint baking [0055] at 160-205°C for 10-30 minutes [0115], which meets the instant limitations.
Claim(s) 1-10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (US 2016/0047021), cited herein, further in view of Das (US 2019/0119799), cited herein.
Nakamura teaches a method of making a rolled product for automobile body parts [0003], said process comprising steps of:
Claim 1
cl. 6
Nakamura
Casting an ingot
Vertical semi-cont casting
(cl. 7)
Semi-contin. casting an ingot
[0064]
Homogen. 520-560°C
*2-8 hrs
Homogenize 500-580°C
1-10 hr
[0065-0066]
Hot roll to thickness 3-10 mm
Hot roll to thickness typically 3 mm
[0088]
Cold roll to sheet 1-4 mm
Cold rolling to thickness typically 1 mm
[0089]
Solution heat 540-580°C, quench
*1 s- 5 min
Solution heat 500C or higher
[0019]
Pre-age 50-120°C t≥8 hrs by coiling
Pre-aging 70<95°C (cl. 8)
Heating 70-150C
[0102], Fig. 4
Pre-aging 50-70°C (cl. 9)
(coiling not mentioned)
Pre-aging >95°C (cl. 10)
Natural aging
*ambient temp 72 hr-6 months
Return to room temperature implied
(examples, etc)
*=and/or
Table 2: comparison of instant claims with process of Nakamura
wherein the process steps taught by Nakamura meet the claimed process steps, and the parameters taught by Nakamura overlap the claimed parameters (i.e. time, temperature, and thickness limitations, see Table 1 above). Further, Nakamura teaches an aluminum alloy comprising (in wt. %):
Cl. 1
Nakamura broad
Si
0.75-1.1
0.4-1.5
Mg
0.75-1.0
0.3-1.0
Cu
0.5-0.8
≤1.0
Fe
-0.4
≤0.5
Ti
-0.15
≤0.3
Mn
0.1-0.4
≤0.5
V
-0.1
≤1.0
Cr
-0.1
≤0.3
impurities
≤0.05ea
≤0.15 total
≤1.0
Table 3: Nakamura vs. Instant claims
see Nakamura at [0034-0044], which broadly overlaps the alloying ranges of Si, Mg, Cu, Fe, Ti, Mn, V, Zr, Cr, and impurities of instant independent claim 1. Nakamura does not specify heating to a low temperature (i.e. pre-aging) and thereafter coil cooling post solution heat treating. However, Das teaches pre-aging Al-Mg-Si alloy sheets after solutionizing together with coil cooling [0076] in order to produce favorable formability and strength combination (examples).
Because Nakamura together with Das teach subjecting an overlapping Al-Mg-Si alloy to identical steps of casting, homogenizing, hot rolling, cold rolling, solution heating, quenching, heating to temperatures that meet the instant preaging temperature, and wherein naturally aging is implied (see Table above, see also Das at [0077]), together with overlapping processing parameters, it is held that Nakamura and Das have created a prima facie case of obviousness of the presently claimed invention.
Concerning claims 2-5, see above discussion of alloying ranges.
Concerning claim 6, 8-10, as set forth above, Nakamura teaches overlapping steps and parameters (see Table 2 above), and therefore meets the instant limitations.
Concerning claim 7, which mentions vertical semi-continuous casting, Nakamura teaches casting by semi-continuous casting [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cast the Al-Mg-Si alloy of Nakamura by a known semi-continuous casting method, such as vertical semi-continuous casting (as claimed), because Nakamura broadly teaches semi-continuous casting.
Concerning claim 15, Nakamura teaches the formed Al-Mg-Si sheet can be further processed by forming (such as press forming [0108]) and paint baking [0114] at 170°C for 20 minutes [0114], which meets the instant limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANELL COMBS MORILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1240. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-3pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/J.C.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1733 12/6/25